“…Based on previous work developed by the authors, preliminary tribocorrosion tests (not shown) were performed in order to choose the cathodic potential drop resultant from the rubbing actions on the surface under free potential conditions, from −0.25 V stable potential to −0.9 V. Based on these preliminary results and on the PD curves obtained, the tribocorrosion behavior of the bone‐stem interface was evaluated by performing potentiostatic tests (PS), applying three different potentials representing three different stages of the passive film: (i) −0.2 V/SCE, the corrosion potential ( E corr ) at which the oxide film of the Ti6Al4V alloy is under free conditions, representing a clinical scenario of resting conditions of the hip stem implant without any motion/loading inside the femur bone; (ii) −0.9 V/SCE, the cathodic potential ( E cat ) where only cathodic reactions are occurring at the surface, representing a clinical situation, where the relative motion that the stem may undergo inside the femur bone can lead to local destruction of the passive film; (iii) 0.7 V/SCE, the passive potential ( E pass ) at which the oxide film of the Ti6Al4V alloy is on steady‐state conditions, clinically simulating the electrochemical state of the surface at the unworn areas of the implant. Tests were carried out in a custom‐built tribometer, previously developed, described, and validated by Butt et al, using a pin‐on‐flat configuration, and the schematic diagram is presented in Figure a. The oscillation frequency of the counter‐body pin during the sliding test was controlled at 1 Hz.…”